Skip to main content

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: Moongleam Date: Nov 13, 2011 4:06pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: 'A River Called Titas'

Colorization, I assume, requires a lot of skilled work. On the other hand, tinting, if the entire movie is given the same tint, is absolutely trivial and should not be copyrightable. It shouldn't even be considered "sweat of the brow".

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Hg80 Date: Nov 13, 2011 4:50pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: 'A River Called Titas'

I remember when colorization made the scene...back in the mid 70s I believe when I think a Laurel and Hardy short was colorized. I think the price tag was around $17,000. Then came Ted Turner with his box of crayons and colorized just about every black and white film he possessed. It's a novelty and destroys the integrity of the film. However, go back a 100 years or so and note the colorization of some of Georges Melies' films...they were done by skilled colorists with paints [dyes] and a brush. Yes, tinting is simple by computer but again in the old days that particular section of positive film stock had to be tinted with a stable [probably an aniline dye much as the original Technicolor films or the now defunct Kodak Kodachrome] colorant. And, it was not an arbitrary decision. The director wanted to convey a certain disposition or mood. The modern tints just appear to be a haphazard methodology.

I do agree with the copyright status...doesn't merit recognition.